What civilian versus combatant death estimates exist for Gaza and how are they determined?
Executive summary
Different methods produce widely different civilian-versus-combatant estimates for Gaza: leaked Israeli military data and several analyses imply roughly 80–83% of Gazans killed were civilians (i.e., about four out of five) [1] [2], while some model-based and demographic studies have produced lower combatant proportions or higher civilian shares—estimates range from at least 62% civilians up to 90% in specific NGO counts [3] [4]. Disagreement stems from divergent sources (Gaza Health Ministry counts, Israeli military tallies, leaked databases, demographic models and NGO demographic analysis) and from different operational definitions and access limitations [5] [1] [6].
1. Why the headline numbers disagree: competing data sources
There is no single authoritative casualty list: Gaza’s Health Ministry publishes totals without classifying civilian versus combatant, the IDF has published and leaked its own tallies and intelligence databases, and independent researchers and NGOs apply demographic or statistical methods to the available counts—each source yields different shares of civilians and fighters [5] [1] [6].
2. Leaked Israeli intelligence and the “83% civilians” finding
Reporting based on a classified Israeli military database indicates five of six Palestinians killed in Gaza were civilians—an 83% civilian rate—because it named about 8,900 fighters among tens of thousands of dead; journalists and analysts treating that database as a primary source have used it to conclude high civilian proportions [1] [7].
3. Israeli official counts and the higher combatant share
Israeli public statements and some official tallies have claimed far larger numbers of Hamas and other combatants killed—up to nearly 20,000 by January 2025—which, if accepted, would lower the civilian share; Israel’s methods include battlefield body counts, signals and human intelligence, and assessments of personnel at struck targets [5] [8].
4. Academic and model-based estimates: demographics and statistical inference
Researchers use demographic patterns (age–sex breakdowns), models of combatant exposure, and household surveys to infer combatant rates. One peer-reviewed model estimated the combatant proportion in the 2023 conflict at about 12.7% (implying ~87% civilians) for that year in its framework, while other academic work and the Watson Institute review cited higher civilian shares or different ratios depending on assumptions [3] [2] [9].
5. NGO demographic analysis and conservative lower bounds
Some NGOs performing demographic analysis of the Gaza Health Ministry’s mortality data conclude at least 74% of the dead are civilians, arguing that counts of women, children and the elderly are overwhelmingly non-combatant and that Israel’s public combatant figures are unsupported [6]. Other monitors, such as Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor, produced estimates as high as 90% civilians in early phases [4].
6. Methodological fault lines: definitions, visibility and verification
Discrepancies arise from core methodological choices: whether adult males are presumed combatants, whether people with organizational affiliations (police, administrators) are counted as fighters, whether deaths from starvation and blocked healthcare are included as indirect war deaths, and how missing/buried bodies are treated. The Gaza Health Ministry counts only recovered bodies, while Israeli military tallies may include intelligence-linked identifications; independent researchers must therefore infer combatant status from fragmented data [1] [5] [4].
7. Access limits, hidden agendas and practical consequences
All sources face restricted access to active combat zones, politicization and potential institutional incentives: Hamas-controlled health data have been criticized by some governments and analysts, the IDF has incentives to report higher combatant numbers, and NGOs may adopt conservative or advocacy-driven classifications—each actor’s institutional perspective shapes their estimates [8] [1] [6].
8. What can be said with confidence and what remains contested
Available reporting converges on two clear points: total death counts are large and contested, and civilian-majority estimates are supported by multiple independent analyses and by the leaked Israeli intelligence database suggesting an ~83% civilian share [1] [2] [6]. What remains contested is the exact civilian-to-combatant ratio because of differing definitions, incomplete verification of identities, and inclusion/exclusion of indirect deaths [5] [3].
9. How analysts try to reduce uncertainty
Analysts triangulate: they compare demographic profiles (age/sex), cross-reference named lists (where available), use signals and battlefield intelligence reported by militaries, and estimate indirect deaths from famine and healthcare collapse—each method reduces some uncertainty but introduces other assumptions, so ranges rather than single figures are the responsible product [3] [2] [9].
Limitations: available sources do not mention a single, universally accepted civilian/combatant registry; every factual claim above cites the specific reporting used.